Looking for a portrait lens ...

May I introduce myself? I'm a serious amateur photographer and
owner of a Leica R6.2 SLR camera. I should like to make
portraits of people, so I am thinking of buying a second-hand 90
mm. Leica lens.
I informed at the leica dealer in the Netherlands if it was
possible to hire such a lens, unfortunately it wasn't. Neither at
any other profesional stores.
Can you give me any advise about what kind of lens is usefull?
For example, Is there much difference between the
summicron-R 2.0 and the elmarit-R 2.8 (except the prize)?

Answers

The standard answer seems to be the 90 2.8, which I now own. I once
owned the 90 2.0, and prefer those images to the 2.8. Yes, the 2.8 is
sharper, but I feel portraits with the summicron "feel" better,
sharpness is not the end all in portrait photography.

I have the Summicron-R; my 90 Elmarit is for the M cameras. It's the
old, original 90 Elmarit. So this will be a somewhat mixed
comparison. The Elmarit lacks for nothing when it comes to
sharpness, even wide open. The Summicron isn't outstandingly sharp
wide open. But I would not describe it as soft, not in the sense
that the 35 Summilux is soft wide open. I might prefer to describe
the image as "liquid" wide open. As Bill Dewberry pointed out, this
has an appeal all its own.

SO: If sharpness is the main goal, get the Elmarit. It's smaller
and lighter. If you need the speed, and value other, less tangible
properties in addition to sharpness, then consider the Summicron. It
makes lovely images.

I own both the 90/2.8 (2nd version) and 90/2 for the R series. If
you want the sharpest, most contrasty lens at all apertures and not
need to stop down as much at close distances for sharpness to the
corners, and/or are using it for a general-purpose travel lens and
want lighter weight, buy the Elmarit (2nd version only!). For a
specialist portrait lens you might prefer the Summicron, as its
rendition of the ultra-fine details is not as razor-sharp nor is the
contrast hard-edged at f/2-f/4. From there down the 2 lenses differ
mainly in weight. Another surprisingly good portrait lens which if
you can find it is usually quite inexpensive, is the 100/4 Macro-
Elmar (the one with focusing mount, not the short-mount for bellows).

Both the above lenses will give you great, and different results. I
prefer the elmarit due to the high, yet gentle, sharpness and its
beautifull backgrounds. At f2.8 and f4 the elmarit backgorunds
dissolve into attractive and delicate forms and small highlights form
perfect uniform circles. I also think the elmarits simple 4 element
design contributes to its ability to render subtle gradations.

My vote is for the Summilux-R 80mm. This has superior performance to
the Summicron 90 at wider apertures - and it is just a wondeful lens
to use for any kind of portraits. It is a real joy to use on the
camera. The Elmarit is an excellent lens too, but for any portraits
now I now always pick out the Summilux. I found the Elmarit a little
slow myself too for a lot of candid portraits in shade or on the
street (I use 50-100 slide film). If the 'lux is too much, then I
would buy the Summicron which I used for many years and liked very
much - I sold it foolishly to buy the "superior" optics of the
Elmarit. The Elmarit is better wide open, but for portraits the 'cron
is just fine and it is a much better match on a reflex in my opinion.

Aside from other considerations it could be worth to keep in mind
that making someone's portrait at f2.0 is not always desirable
(seldom desirable, in fact, depending upon your personal photo style)
because of the shallow DOF involved, too shallow in far too many
oportunities(now again, depending upon your way of doing things. . .)
In my case, f2.8 is the widest aperture I think still useful for
portraits because most of the time my subjects are not far enough to
get a usable sharpness in all the planes usually of interest of a
head, for instance.

As long as the eyes are in sharp focus and the lens is a good
"portrait" lens (i.e. nice bokeh that maintains out of focus shapes
well) then in my opinion very often a beautiful result ensues - and
like I have said somewhere else, how about candids - waist up with
eyes in focus - very nice effects at f1.4 -2.8 - not all portraits are
head only. And then there are other candids shot at further distances.
Many people I think don't seem to get the whole concept of selective
focus....

I agree, Robin: according to your way of doing things what you say is
a big truth.
My only point is to warn Wijnand that the widest possible aperture is
not the only consideration (may be not even the most important one)
concerning portraiture lenses . . . according to one's way of doing
portraits, right ?
But still, have fun doing it your way!!

My favorite portraits are very obviously not shot wide open.
The "blurred background" headshot has become incredibly boring, not
really interesting except for model portfolios. I shoot most of my
portraits with a normal to wide lens, at f8 or f11 if the light
allows it.